W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:14:37 -0400
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED4DA@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "WebDAV (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Since user-based quota systems are common in existing repositories,
I'm not sure what you are suggesting we wait for.

Also, I agree with the suggestion that we not use the term "bytes"
in the property names.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:57 PM
To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt


That's a fine idea, but there's nothing necessarily tying the
current-user-quota stuff into the directory quota draft.  I generally
prefer to write drafts only once implementation is well understood --
one's assumptions tend to have been confirmed or destroyed by then.  Is
it reasonable to wait until somebody wants to implement user-quota to
standardize it?

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

Possibly we should have two pairs of standard properties:
DAV:quota
DAV:quota-used
DAV:current-user-quota
DAV:current-user-quota-used
(analogous to the way the ACL draft as current-user privileges)
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Brian Korver
Cc: Webdav WG
Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

Brian,
> From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:56 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > This kind of quota system is incompatible with the quota system in a
> > Unix
> > filesystem (where AFAIK it's per user) -- a standard proposal must
be
> > able
> > to handle these kinds of systems as well.
>
> In BSD anyhow, quotas are applied to users and/or groups.  That said,
> "collection quotas" (if we can even call them that) are generally
enforced
> by mounting appropriately-sized partitions.  Just FYI.
Interesting. So if we take groups into account, we'll need a more
flexible
reporting mechanism, right?
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 16:15:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT